Right. That's enough

Studio
21

How not to be unhappy, if you read a statement by Damien3, sends a mail like he told you to do, and then waits almost a week for nothing… Just to discover that he made a contradictory statement a few hours later, and that you did not see.

As for A3.5, I don’t doubt that Damien is a good guy, since I’m a customer of him since 2014.
But things are different now. He is not alone. There maybe investors that support the release of AS, he has a partner who is a businessman… So I think that we should expect Audirvana to behave as a business entity from now on. And it’s not in the interest of Audirvana to have customers who remain under A3.5, because these customers don’t provide any new revenue.

Don’t expect them to do anything that will make your life easier with A3.5. Furthermore, without being paranoid, I’ll advise you to keep a copy of your old version of A3.5, before installing any upgrade, that might, accidentally or not, shorten the life span of your existing A3.5.

3 Likes
22

So, if Damien had decided not to go with a subscription model, no one would have paid for an upgrade to Audirvana 4.0? I know I would have gladly done so.

1 Like
23

Agree with the OP, have signed up for another Roon trial. The simplicity of it, it works, beautifully, coupled with the brilliance of the gui… I think it’s decision made. I thought SQ may be an issue as I upscale everything to 64/384 and thought Roon lagged behind Audirvana for that, but so far it sounds sweet.

This is well worth an extra couple of pounds per month, the AS launch has been totally shambolic. I knew I had to do something when the wife said “you are always on your laptop nowadays” … It’s ridiculous that there’s still no remote app!

1 Like
24

Buying a license is different. I have many licensed players. For me to subscribe to a player, it should provide an excellency that others do not have.

25

So if it’s one time payment license you would tolerate issues better? I don’t think so.

26

No, the player should perform well, otherwise I won’t buy the license.
If Roon, for instance, was offered for sale at a fair price, I would have bought it.
But for me, it doesn’t offer the degree of excellency that justifies a subscription.

1 Like
27

Looks like you’re trying to convince yourself that you shouldn’t subscribe, but it’s hard. You want to subscribe. With all the comments you’ve put in Audirvana should charge you more. :wink:

3 Likes
28

I’m waiting now for the remote. If all functions well, I may subscribe for a month or two to see how all this evolves.

There are two points that annoy me with Audirvana for few years already.

  1. I have a lot of DSD tracks. While in the past Audirvana provided the best sound for them, it’s not the case anymore for few years already. I have the impression that the development efforts were directed towards streaming, and DSD was neglected. For DSD, all the players improved, and Audirvana was left behind.
    Even JRiver, that I have and that whose SQ is inferior to Audirvana players, gives better playback of DSD tracks, because it is able to re-modulate DSD 64 to DSD 265. And Audirvana can’t do that.

  2. All my DSD tracks were converted to DSF-WV tracks on SSDs for playback when I’m far from home, which happens often for professional reasons. And though all the players in the market, including the free ones, support DSF-WV, Audirvana players do not.

3 Likes
29

That me.

I’ll buy software. I will not rent it. Ever.

Make a good stand-alone product at a 1 time price and I’ll buy it. But I won’t commit to continuously paying in order to use that product.

1 Like
30

Per week it’s $1.50. Cost of a third of a cup of coffee. ONE Third of a cup of coffee per WEEK. A bargain in my eyes. And supporting a supplier who has given me hours of pleasure. Perspective is a great thing.

And I know many will say it’s not even a finished product. True. And I still support AUDIRVĀNA STUDIO.

5 Likes